St. Landry democrat., 1887-11-26

't[oEi ht'"Ct NDrNI bitCl INV y StEh gu. iIEI Hi
sive the official Figures. AS [ have stated
the price under the Ieyee company was 80
cents per cubic yard. In its report made 10
Governor WIKI tho board says: "From thls
tHllhff IL VIII be seen That III 1877 and 1873
~llS6,747 cubic Yards OF levce were built for
$lS6,Al2 as. an average cost Of % 23 cents per
cu0lc yard. In 1878 and 1879 !, 263, $50 cubic
ya'ds were hullt for $685. 10, at an average
COST OF 1t 10 cents per CUBIC yar0. During
The three yeara OF 1877. 1873 and 1879 :, 35O. GS3
cubic yards were nuIlI for 1924, 059 IS, at an
average cost of 10 40 cents per cubic yard"
AS have said previously In this canvass
THIS Is IA wonderful aud marvellous result,
aiId we may we'll pause to consider it and til,
blessings which were bestowed on the allu-
vial region ~ the ~abrogatiOn of the leVe3
company ana the creation of a board OF en-
Gineera. Hh4feVGrm may nave been the eff
caclouS work done by them since, nothing
surpasses the above figures and statement.
IL challenges comparison and demands our
admiration.
FEDERAL IEvEE WORK.
Now, | DO not deny that a greater amount
OF money has been expended on the levees
during Governor McEnery's administration
tnan was expended duliug Governor Mich
OILS administration. but these expenditures
were not the expenditures OF Governor Ne
Eaery's administration, they were the eX-
pendltures OF the brave-hearted people OF
this state, i'll the districts and by the aid Of
the federal government. [ find in the report
OF the board of engineers for 10Th April, 1884,
LUdI over TWO lnllll0nS OF OOll2fS were els
posed Of for leyees By the federal govern
meut and by railroad corporations and
Others. snail we give Governor McEHery the
credit for all thisf Shall we attribute TO him
everything that has been done by everybody
else and thus make of him as 1t were a levee
deml-eOd, as some of his supporters would
bave us DO? Why OF course not. Let us
give him credit for fidelity and zeal, but let
us In doing this not attempt to invest him
with attributes which he does not possess.
or with the fruits of the labors Of others
wholly disconnected with his administration
and beyond its reach or control.
Strange as 1t may seem, some Of the very
gentlemen who support Governor McEnery
anu VINO seek TO attribute to him the merit
OF everythlnIt THAT The federal government
has done, In lle same breath seek to strike
down our representatives In the federal gov
ernment by whose zeal. Intelligence and
labor the aid OF the federal government was
obtained. Thus among many of the warm
supporters OF The administration there has
been an avowed open and declared hostility
to the Hon. Randall l.. Gibson, our senior
senator. There has been q declared purpose
to wage warupon him and to retire him from
public life. Is there q man familiar with
the record VINO does not know that the
federal aid for our levees, in a large measure,
was the result OF his labors2 That 1t was
his nina which, after aid for the levees had
been largely voted down on the ground that
under the general welfare clause OF the CON
stltution the federal government had no
power to appropriate money to build levees,
conceived the broad and statesman-like idea
OF reaching the same end under the com
merce clause of the constitution. That year
by yearhislabors and the labOrs Of our delega-
ton were directed to this end Until success
had crowned their efforts. Strange tnconsis-
tencV which can lead the mind NOT only to
attribute to one the labors of another, but
which at the same time can lead the same
mind TO seek to strike down the hand by
whose labors the results have been really
brought abont.
Guy-a Jnvncrrtru%a 20 T +hyrI ba
yond peradventure. that Governor McEne7y,
whatever may be his merits as a lsvee gov
ernor, is no more, If as much, entitled to the
credit for the levee system or the state tnan
the attempt TO build up u third term upon
the basis Of the leyeo governor or the leyee
policy ? There is one thing. however, In the
records OF Governor McEnery's levee admin
istratlop, which, In my judgment, is subject
to criticism. What is that subject! That
subject Is act No. IS of 1884.
DISCUSSION OF ACT NO. 50 OF 1854.
What did this act provide? 1t stipulated
that during a certain period all the levee
work should DO given absolutely to MIR.
James, the peDltentiary lessee, and Mr.. Nc
Glnty, at prices named lr@Ehe act. In other
words, this act destroYe ed the system OF open
competition for leyee work and created IN
Its lieu a monopoly for levee building with
out competition.
Now I submit in the first place that this !
law was Ciearty UNCONSTITUTIONAL, III p5- |
CONES difficult to read the various provt
slons In the constitution of the state without
the conclusion that open competi-
tive bidding was the system TO which the
to all public work as examples, the sta
tionerY for the courts in New Orleans and
for the departments Of state in Baton Rouge,
the contract for public printing, etc., are all
expressly directed by the constitution to Do
TO the lowest bidder after oppor-
has been given for full competition.
act as TO ievees no. only did not invite
competition, but destroyed il by making a
direct contract with particular people to do
the levee work at stated prices for a
given time. 1t seems clear to me that the
attorney general of the state CON
this law unconstitutional. On May
!, 1885, the board OF engineers addressed to
him q communication making inquiries as
to certain details OF the law. On May 10,
1885, he answered the question. SO sedu-
.ous, however, was he to avoid, even by i'm
being considered as treating the
as q constitutional one that IN cenolud-
.ng his opinion ne used this language:
81 wish TO be understood as only answer
ng your inquiries and not as expressing any
as To the constitutlonallly OF the act
or as to the extent Of your powers and
luties under the constitution and other
avs"
In other words 1 submit to you that
MtEnery's administration is
to criticism in SO far as its acts
. sSFcSo a. SNA~SA AS
that what ls conceived TO be an un-
Institutional law creating q monopoly OF
building for a particular time was
placed upon the statute books and carried
Iut.
Now it has been said that this law was
necessary because there was o
among the levee contractors to
orce up the price and thus create a monopo-
y. What unsound reasoning. Surprising
t to have been true, Is it commended that ir
vas q wise policy to destroy one monopoly
" creating another? Is not this An Illus
ration OF the old adage "ouJ OF the frying
an into the fire :" Does not this argument
1T was necessary to create a monopoly
q order to cure a monopoly remind you OF
ne old and familiar story of the doctor who
GUIDE only cure tits and therefore gave every
,arien5 Of his TITS In order that he might
TIRE thems Laughter.
IL strikes Inc, however, that the conten-
ion that the creation OF this monopoly was
endered necessary by a monopoly among
he levee contractors Ia entirely destroyed
y the folio wing facts. am informed by
Ugh authority Il have not the official ny-
res because OF course none were Kept) tnat I
he contractors, or one OF tnetn, VINO got .
ne work from the state at the prices named j
q the act, Immediately proceeded to give it I
ut at a less price than that paid by the state !
0 the leree contractors. He thus, under 1
is monopoly, became simply a go {
no with whom he contracted, taking 8
ne WORK from the state at a fixed l
rice without competition ana lmme- Y
lately proceeding TO give IL to q contractor
t a less price and make the difference. {
+ow, will 1t be said that this does not 9
iainly indicate that a monopoly OF loVee y
ontractOrs did not exist. L
If a ievee contractor WAS Wiling TO take
10 work from the one holding the monopoly
'ould not he have been wiling TO take 1t c
ON the state and make a pront on 1T! y
7ould 1t not have besn both sound economy b
well as onnd policy to have MAD the '
make her contracts direct with the 8
ersons who did the work2
But 1t is said the prices named In the mo d
opoly contract were reasonable. Let us o
Omit 1t. However reasonable they may t
ave been at the time the monopoly was en- o